Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout020-96 020 --q C2 otsp,NTUCift, TOWN OF NANTUCKET 3 ' tr' APPEALS . ' , If BOARD OF • .9poRmo. NANTUCKET, MASSACHUSETTS 02554 Date : /rn Gv&CL&_ °7 7 , 19 96 To : Parties in Interest and. Others concerned with the Decision of the BOARD OF APPEALS in the Application of the following : Application No . : 020-96 Owner/Applicant : Berber-r /e /7 / S1 / . '.:_? /) / . l ec'_ /7/1 A)2s4- Enclosed is the Decision of the BOARD OF APPEALS which has this day been filed in the office of the Nantucket Town Clerk . An Appeal from this Decision may be taken pursuant to Section 17 of Chapter 40A, Massachusetts General Laws . Any action appealing the Decision must be brought by filing an complaint in court within TWENTY ( 20) days after this day ' s date . Notice of the action with a copy of the complaint and certified copy of the Decision must be given to the Town Clerk so as to be received within such TWENTY ( 20 ) days . _2 Michael J . 0-,Ma a . Chairman cc : Town Clerk Planning Board Building Commissioner PLEASE NOTE: MOST SPECIAL PERMITS AND VARIANCES HAVE A TIME LIMIT AND WILL EXPIRE IF NOT ACTED UPON ACCORDING TO NANTUCKET ZONING BY-LAW §139-301 ( SPECIAL PERMITS) ; § 139-32I (VARIANCES ) ANY QUESTIONS, PLEASE CALL THE NANTUCKET ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS . ,mauCMeio, TOWN OF NANTUCKET • u. = �N BOARD OF APPEALS Z -x a b c-9POFA ond v NANTUCKET, MASSACHUSETTS 02554 Assessor ' s Map 55 . 1 .4 8 East Dover Street Parcel 27 Deed Ref . 143 , Page 79 Residential Old Historic At a Public Hearing of the Nantucket Zoning Board of Appeals , held at 1 : 00 P .M. , Friday, March 29 , 1996 , in the Selectmen ' s Meeting Room, in the Town and County Building, Broad Street , Nantucket , Massachusetts , on the Application of HERBERT R . VAN NESS, JR. AND D. LEE H. VAN NESS, of 8 East Dover Street, Nantucket , MA 02554 , Board of Appeals File No. 020-96 , the Board made the following Decision: 1 . Applicants are seeking relief by VARIANCE pursuant to Nantucket Zoning By-Law §139-16A ( Intensity Regulations - minimum lot size) to validate a lot as it has been reconfigured and that contains a said to be pre-existing non-conforming single-family dwelling . The Locus is non-conforming as to minimum lot size , having 2 , 962+ square feet of area in a district that requires a minimum lot size of 5 , 000 square feet; as to frontage, having 41 . 35+ feet of frontage along East Dover Street in a district that requires a minimum frontage of 50 feet; as to ground cover , having a ground cover ratio in excess of the maximum ratio of 30% allowed for undersized lots; and as to setbacks , with the structure being sited closer to the easterly side yard lot line than five ( 5 ) feet at its closest point and sited at zero feet from the rear yard lot line at its closest point in a district that requires a five ( 5 ) foot side and rear yard setback. A garage structure that is located on the westerly abutting lot , identified as 10 East Dover Street , encroaches upon the Locus by approximately one ( 1 ) foot . Applicants have entered into an agreement with the abutters to swap identical pieces of land to enable the garage structure to be contained entirely within the abutting property ' s lot lines . Applicants now seek to validate the subject lot as reconfigured as a separately marketable and buildable lot . See also BOA Decision in 017-96 . The premises is located at 8 EAST DOVER STREET, Assessor ' s Map 55 . 1 . 4 , Parcel 27 , as shown on Deed Reference 143 , Page 79 . The property is zoned Residential Old Historic . 2 . The Decision is based upon the Application and materials submitted with it and the testimony and evidence presented at the Hearing . There were no letters in favor or against . The Planning Board made 3 . Applicants ' lot contains a single-family dwelling unit that pre-dates the enactment of the Zoning By-Law in 1972 and thus is a validly grandfathered structure. A garage structure located on the abutting lot to the west, and identified as 10 East Dover Street , encroaches on Applicants ' lot and extends across the common lot line by approximately one ( 1 ) foot . This encroachment was discovered durinc_ a transfer of title of the abutting lot in 1986 by a predecessor in title to the current owner . The Applicants attempted to rectify the situation by conveying by deed to the then owner of the lot to the west , that portion of the subject parcel which was located under the garage as it encroached upon their property. All rights , title and interest in the land under the garage were relinquished by the Applicants . Subsequent to that conveyance by deed , the then owner of 10 East Dover Street, sold that lot including that portion of land under the garage to the current owners . The matter came to light again during an attempted conveyance of 10 East Dover Street to a new owner( s ) in 1995 . Since the effective date of the Subdivision Control Law, it is a matter of law that a new lot can not be created through conveyance by deed and further requires that a plan be endorsed pursuant to M.G.L. c . 41 §81-P showing the new lot lines . As both the subject lot and the abutting lot to the west are validly grandfathered lots , any change in the lot lines of either lot under Nantukcet Zoning By-Law § 139-16A would cause the lots to loose said grandfathering and no longer be in compliance . Further , any alterations or extensions of any non-conformities would necessitate relief by a grant of a Variance . 4 . Applicants propose to exchange an equal portion of their lot for an equal portion of the abutting lot to the west (the area under the garage) in order to allow the abutter to enclose the garage structure entirely within his lot . The lot area , ground cover and frontage of each lot will remain essentially unchanged . Relief to validate the abutting lot at 10 East Dover Street by Variance was granted in Board of Appeals Decision 017-96 at a Public Hearing held on Friday , March 8 , 1996 . 5 . The Board found in Decision 017-96 that the intrusion of the garage into the subject lot was diminimous in nature and that the siting of the garage was unique to that lot and said intrusion had existed since a time before the enactment of 1972 Zoning . Having granted relief by Variance for the abutting lot to the west to validate the lot lines as reconfigured the Board now finds that the same relief could be granted to validate the subject lot as reconfigured on the same grounds and further owing to circumstances relating to the soil conditions , shape or topography of such land or structures and especially affecting such land or structures but not affecting generally the zoning district in which it is located , a literal enforcement of the provisions of this Zoning By-Law would involve substantial hardship , financial or otherwise, to the Applicants , and the desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of the By-Law. 6 . Accordingly, by a vote of the Board GRANTS the requested VARIANCE under Nantucket Zoning By-Law §139-16A to validate the lot as reconfigured and shown on a plan drawn by Charles W. Hart Associates , dated March 5 , 1996 attached hereto and marked as abutting lot to the west , and identified as 10 East Dover Street, encroaches on Applicants ' lot and extends across the common lot line by approximately one ( 1 ) foot . This encroachment was discovered dur:.ng a transfer of title of the abutting lot in 1986 by a predecessor in title to the current owner . The Applicants attempted to rectify the situation by conveying by deed to the then owner of the lot to the west , that portion of the subject parcel which was located under the garage as it encroached upon their property . All rights, title and interest in the land under the garage were relinquished by the Applicants . Subsequent to that conveyance by deed , the then owner of 10 East Dover Street, sold that lot including that portion of land under the garage to the current owners . The matter came to light again during an attempted conveyance of 10 East Dover Street to a new owner( s ) in 1995 . Since the effective date of the Subdivision Control Law, it is a matter of law that a new lot can not be created through conveyance by deed and further requires that a plan be endorsed pursuant to M.G.L. c. 41 §81-P showing the new lot lines . As both the subject lot and the abutting lot to the west are validly grandfathered lots, any change in the lot lines of either lot under Nantukcet Zon: ng By-Law §139-16A would cause the lots to loose said grandfathering a: no longer be in compliance . Further, any alterations or extensions of any non-conformities would necessitate relief by a grant of a Variance . 4 . Applicants propose to exchange an equal portion of their lot for an equal portion of the abutting lot to the west (the area under the garage) in order to allow the abutter to enclose the garage structure entirely within his lot . The lot area , ground cover and frontage of each lot will remain essentially unchanged . Relief to validate the abutting lot at 10 East Dover Street by Variance was granted in Board of Appeals Decision 017-96 at a Public Hearing held on Friday , March 8 , 1996 . 5 . The Board found in Decision 017 -96 that the intrusion of the garage into the subject lot was diminimous in nature and that the siting of the garage was unique to that lot and said intrusion had existed Since a time before the enactment of 1972 Zoning. Having granted relief by Variance for the abutting lot to the west to validate the lot lines as reconfigured the Board now finds that the same relief could be granted to validate the subject lot as reconfigured on the same grounds and further owing to circumstances relating to the soil conditions , shape or topography of such land or structures and especially affecting such land or structures but not affecting generally the zoning district in which it is located, a literal enforcement of the provisions of this Zoning By-Law would involve substantial hardship, financial or otherwise, to the Applicants , and the desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent or purpose of the By-Law . 6 Accordingly, by a vote of f"ou,"' G`/9 Ir,-7<lact CC1Ji% byrkc Sewz,1S, 2 . I a/ oP 1an9eloaq Z7) - one- Cr) 4 aoSe ' C& lag) the Board GRANTS the requested VARIANCE under Nantucket Zoning By-Law §139-16A to validate the lot as reconfigured and shown on a plan drawn by Charles W. Hart AssocipiV ated March 5 , 1996 attached hereto and marked as TOWN CLERK'S OFFICE NANTUCKET, MA 02554 APR 0 9 1996 TIME: - _. t t d -._ /LI�/ t182 13`>t flNbbN 21 :21 BEE T-6t3-6dU Exhibit "A" subject to the following condition : The lot shall be afforded all the rights of a lot that is validly grandfathered subject to the terms of Nantucket Zoning By-Law §139-33 as may be amended from time to time . Dated : March 27 1996 `lopvio2c0-6 1 ,hcJc t fth'(Irbnms V\)1? , co11ia ' p. U I • - / �Add / 1ii� 1aer cers lQ �U — \t, Haney rens Aimi:94&,--- A-n o 5-. 13a/as RECEIVED TOWN CLERK'S OFFICE Fins C^'4iriq MAR 2 9 1996 - , 1.4 I - - ,-- .___ . _CO•`7)..9 2' „.C_C.` .2:0 „ Z 0 ,S' -->— - •,-, . . c-- . • , - c,, - ' - , ., . . 1 --• . . . , --,•••771 - -DI - - , ...„, . ,,,i. -:,•&-R_.,--0' 1...._ • . -—4 i . . . i-- . ,,j_L ■•• v) `•4 (,(•., — --9 ,\ (r) , ' ., •-..y_c-_-. 8? —, ! --0 \,.. t nie — --, . : - (---0 - --- cq I ..„ L 1,,-, v) 0,-) • . Os: , ■ c' Lk cr)-': A-1 . 2c.- ,-- ,, ,-, • 2-,.-. ',> •, (.,, \,\,z i-, u> -, LTh c, ,ki - f•,. -.. ,...0 -, , .'c ,, ■ k"k ,.• , 1 H.s. ..\..9 ) .- • ' ''C'. -;' 1 -0.2 ,r, - c.".9_'„ei—.-_—0---..--..• -.- ,--.-------------..-----— m•su..s- , z ' 97 . , ., r 9•c p:- . IN i . ... i- _',, _< , . , N, '< 0 ",:-.4-Th K: - '. - t•. (0 I.: ,-.,, 00c•.4(2, 0 . , '.,/ s 1-•,(-)Qce a -----‘ - - . . _ ?- N -- . ' . ..: ... a . . „ , . . . N. 0 j 0 El "i) i k ', • r) ?' •. Q Li - C) . ■• . i ....‘, tli . . i,'; • ; , - •4 CC-) 0 1 0 , G 1- 0 ',) ,r) I • ., C,) ,i, ' i ' '-i ''• L4‘ "' (:"3 N i----- ' • .... -T' ',-) (A) • . • , I '. ,.-.. ; : , . . . ,..... .